Humphreys’ alignment of this theory with the biblical days of creation is clearly problematic since many of the activities referred to during the six days of creation would have to occur from within the white hole (under incredible gravitational forces).

The fact that scientific cosmology has landed precisely in the same spot as the Bible has indeed been disturbing to most naturalistic scientists and philosophers (most of whom are atheists and have an obvious interest in the issue far beyond the bounds of science).

The present state of scientific cosmology is this: The universe, as we know it, as described by the laws of physics, had a beginning.

From these two cosmology theories we can then easily show that a cosmology founded on the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Infinite Eternal Space is the most simple, that it matches observations correctly, and explains and solves the many problems currently caused by the Big Bang creation theory of Cosmology.

WSM cosmology is founded on the most simple solution - describing an infinite eternal space full of matter, but matter only interacts with other matter in a finite spherical region of infinite space, which we call our 'observable universe'.

Finally, the WSM cosmology predicts that motion of distant galaxies will behave as if there is matter all around them, whereas in the big bang cosmology there would only be matter on one side (the inside, as there is no 'outside').

This is illustrated by the revision of the cosmology of the scriptures of the Jews.

The old cosmology was abandoned, with its rigid firmament and planetary spheres, and a true understanding of the laws of the universe was possible.

The corruption of the Bible'scosmology in the hellenistic period is understood from an interpretation of the cryptic language of Daniel's vision described in chapter 8, which indicates that the main revisions in the Bible'scosmology were initiated by Antiochus IV.

The Biblicalcosmology is never explicitly stated, so it must be pieced together from scattered passages.

Biblical statements bearing on cosmology are (with one possible exception yet to be discussed) consistent with the well-known flat-earthcosmologies of the ancient Near East, but they are often flatly contradicted by modern science.

On the other hand, the flat-earthcosmology previously described is historically consistent and requires none of the special pleading apparently necessary to harmonize the Bible with sphericity.

If you would like to discussbiblicalcosmology and science in greater detail, I can reorder my original list and that this can be the first topic of discussion we can engage in and hence the first for my article series if you wish.

The key, in my opinion, to biblicalcosmology is phenomenological language and the pre-scientific poetic nature of Hebrew literature.

If one doesn't understand that (at least in its general outlines), then they have no hope of getting biblicalcosmology (to the extent that it can be said to exist at all as a distinct "field") right.

In pursuing research at the boundary between science and religion, the John Templeton Foundation seeks to unite credible and rigorous science with the exploration of humanity's basic spiritual and religious quests.

In particular, the CCCU seeks to address the contemporary suspicion of science among evangelicals by encouraging among its member colleges a rigorous scholarly study of the relationship between science and religion.

Biblicalcosmology and Greek cosmology from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages.

In pursuing research at the boundary between science and religion, the John Templeton Foundation seeks to unite credible and rigorous science with the exploration of humanity's basic spiritual and religious quests.

In particular, the CCCU seeks to address the contemporary suspicion of science among evangelicals by encouraging among its member colleges a rigorous scholarly study of the relationship between science and religion.

Biblicalcosmology and Greek cosmology from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages.

The two-register character of biblicalcosmology, relative as it is to man's preglorification status, is not permanent.

Within the two-register cosmology of the creation account with all its replications of upper register realities in the lower register world, all of them reproductions with a difference, there can be no doubt about the figurative nature of the relationship of the Sabbath ordinance to God's upper register creation week.

In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblicalcosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man.

Addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences before its meetings on Cosmology and Cosmogony in October 1981, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the statement of Pope Pius XII that the universe was created "millions of years ago" directly contrary to creationists views.

The second biblical account of creation (2:4b-24) opens with "When the Lord God made..." and goes through how the entire surface of the earth was watered by a flow that would well up through subterranean springs.

Although biblical myths were influenced by other mythical statements of the ancient world, they are used by the biblical writers to express history's relationship to God.

The existence of our galaxy, the Milky Way, as a separate group of stars was only proven in the 20th century, along with the existence of "external" galaxies, and soon after, the expansion of the universe seen in the recession of most galaxies from us.

Cosmology made huge advances during the 20th century, with the model of the big bang heavily supported by the evidence provided by astronomy and physics, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, Hubble's Law and cosmological abundances of elements.

At first glance the cosmology seems foreign, but a closer look reveals that not only does the cosmology of the Bhagavatam describe the world of our experience, but it also presents a much larger and more complete cosmological picture.

For centuries the cosmology of the Bhagavatam has seemed incomprehensible to most observers, encouraging many people either to summarily reject it or to accept it literally with unquestioning faith.

The cosmology of the Bhagavata Purana is a sophisticated system of thought, with multiple layers of meaning, both physical and metaphysical.

Another problem with this cosmology is the statement that the sun, moon and stars were set within this firmament.

It?s not possible to be quite that precise from the Biblical record, but given the genealogies going back to Adam and the ages given for each person, a range can be established and it can be safely said that the Bible allows an age of the world of not much more than 6,000 years.

Either the star is older than 150,000 years, which you would have to concede blows the Biblical timetable, or you must concede that God created a record, in light, of an event that did not actually occur.

Kant's model of an infinitely old universe and his denial of the supernatural including God forms the basis for modern cosmology.

A partial list of early biblical scholars who interpreted the creation days of Genesis 1 as longer than 24 hours: Josephus, Irenaeus, Origen, Basil, Augustine, Aquinas.

Some ideas they propose: The "appearance of age" theory (that God created trees with annual rings for years that never existed); the idea that the Bible is the "only" authoritative source of truth (rejection of science).

The bedrock of the Creationist argument rests squarely on the Biblical Flood as it is told in the Chapter of Genesis.

Because the actual fossil record firmly supports the gradual evolution of life over time as described by science, and it represents some of the most damaging evidence against creationism (the idea that all species of organisms on earth were created instantly and fully-formed).

While the biblical flood story is almost certainly derived from the earlier Babylonian flood mythology, modern creationists are under the misapprehension that such an event is an historical certainty.

Such a statement plants in the minds of many people that the near converse is true, that is, that the first geocentricists were not pagans and held the Bible in high esteem.

The truth is that there is no biblical text that explicitly affirms either geocentricism or heliocentricism, nor can a synthesis of clear texts be used to support either model (Faulkner, “Geocentricism and Creation,” p.

Though I disagree with and present a refutation of the precreation chaos theory in my class on BiblicalCreationism, his series of articles was beneficial because he reflected a serious approach to theological research and exegesis.